16/08: Reaction to "What He Said"
Some thoughts on Okie Gardener's assertions in re Resolution 1701:
1. I agree that this is a win for Hezbollah and Iran and a loss for our team.
2. I agree that we will pay for this debacle in the future.
But, then again, what choice do we have?
1. We are up to our eyeballs with war in Iraq. I am not positive that the American people will see our commitment in Iraq to its promised conclusion, but I am sure that one more straw on the back of this camel will break us. As I have written before, we are over-extended militarily, precariously stretched financially and divided politically. We are one economic panic away from full retreat. We are in no position to threaten Hezbollah—much less Iran. The Mullahs understand this, the Europeans love it and the Arab League sees it.
2. As for Israel, we handed them a month to crush Hezbollah. That was about three weeks longer than I thought we could squeeze them, and enough time to win--if it was going to happen. They were unprepared to make the most of their opportunity. They lose. We lose. But throwing good money after bad never saved a losing hand. Get out and wait for the next deal.
3. This may be Munich (although that seems a forced analogy, especially since we are fighting an "asymmetrical "enemy, which explains Israel's current failure in Lebanon; the new threat is not like the pathetic Arab land armies of the 1960s & 1970s or the fierce fascist "wehrmacht" of the late-1930s). We have not figured out how to defeat the new threat. Until we do, we should be cautious and conservative in making literal war on these amorphous terrorist appendages, even when they are connected to hostile rogue states.
4. And if it is Munich, I speculate that an invasion of Poland will follow. If these guys really are as bad as we think they are, they will eventually overstep their bounds. Until then, a real war in the Middle East will not play in Peoria.
1. I agree that this is a win for Hezbollah and Iran and a loss for our team.
2. I agree that we will pay for this debacle in the future.
But, then again, what choice do we have?
1. We are up to our eyeballs with war in Iraq. I am not positive that the American people will see our commitment in Iraq to its promised conclusion, but I am sure that one more straw on the back of this camel will break us. As I have written before, we are over-extended militarily, precariously stretched financially and divided politically. We are one economic panic away from full retreat. We are in no position to threaten Hezbollah—much less Iran. The Mullahs understand this, the Europeans love it and the Arab League sees it.
2. As for Israel, we handed them a month to crush Hezbollah. That was about three weeks longer than I thought we could squeeze them, and enough time to win--if it was going to happen. They were unprepared to make the most of their opportunity. They lose. We lose. But throwing good money after bad never saved a losing hand. Get out and wait for the next deal.
3. This may be Munich (although that seems a forced analogy, especially since we are fighting an "asymmetrical "enemy, which explains Israel's current failure in Lebanon; the new threat is not like the pathetic Arab land armies of the 1960s & 1970s or the fierce fascist "wehrmacht" of the late-1930s). We have not figured out how to defeat the new threat. Until we do, we should be cautious and conservative in making literal war on these amorphous terrorist appendages, even when they are connected to hostile rogue states.
4. And if it is Munich, I speculate that an invasion of Poland will follow. If these guys really are as bad as we think they are, they will eventually overstep their bounds. Until then, a real war in the Middle East will not play in Peoria.
16/08: Remember Darfur
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
From the BBC with a link from Darfur Information Center. Aug 8. More aid workers in Darfur have been killed in the last two weeks than in the last two years. The suffering of the people of the Darfur region of the Sudan continues, violence committed by fellow Islamic Sudanese aided and abetted by the Sudanese government. This is Muslim on Muslim violence, Arab on black. To read the article click this link and scroll down to Violence threatens Darfur relief.
Read article.
Read article.
16/08: What He Said
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
In an earlier post I questioned the wisdom of the UN cease-fire deal in Lebanon. Historian Arthur Herman gives his analysis here. Link from Powerline. Feeling like 1938.
16/08: Congressional Race to Watch
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
Will the Republicans or the Democrats control the House of Representatives following this fall's elections? Many seem to think that the race in the 1st Congressional District in Iowa will be a key contest. For a Foxnews story see here. For a Des Moines Register story see here. Map of the Iowa 1st Congressional District here. Braley (Dem candidate) campaign web site here. Whalen (Rep candidate) campaign website here.
Interesting tidbits about the campaign: Whalen, a business owner, has a picture of Ronald Reagan along with a Reagan quote on the frontpage of his website. Braley, a lawyer, on the frontpage of his website asserts that a lot in Washington needs fixed, and he has language links for Spanish and Bosnian.
Interesting tidbits about the campaign: Whalen, a business owner, has a picture of Ronald Reagan along with a Reagan quote on the frontpage of his website. Braley, a lawyer, on the frontpage of his website asserts that a lot in Washington needs fixed, and he has language links for Spanish and Bosnian.
16/08: Here We Go Again
After any terrorist strike or plot, once more the "Muslim community" goes before the cameras, proclaiming themselves innocent victims of bigotry. yada, yada, yada link
Here's a suggestion to the "Muslim community" in the West. If you really want to convince us you are with the good guys: 1) denounce terrorists with no equivocation, publicly, no buts, no attempts to explain or rationalize, do it in English and in Arabic, buy media time in the old countries denouncing terrorism; 2) don't whine about profiling, instead show your anger at those in your midst who conduct terror in the name of Allah, quit acting like you are always the victims; 3) drive terror supporters from your community, publicly, expell them from mosques, ostracize them, purge them from community organizations; 4) publicly confront those passages from the Quran and Haddith calling for war against unbelievers and explain to the world how you interpret them, same with passages about the dhimmi status of Jews and Christians; 5) have patriotic rallies with American flags, endorse freedom of religion, burn some posters of Osama and company.
Here's a suggestion to the "Muslim community" in the West. If you really want to convince us you are with the good guys: 1) denounce terrorists with no equivocation, publicly, no buts, no attempts to explain or rationalize, do it in English and in Arabic, buy media time in the old countries denouncing terrorism; 2) don't whine about profiling, instead show your anger at those in your midst who conduct terror in the name of Allah, quit acting like you are always the victims; 3) drive terror supporters from your community, publicly, expell them from mosques, ostracize them, purge them from community organizations; 4) publicly confront those passages from the Quran and Haddith calling for war against unbelievers and explain to the world how you interpret them, same with passages about the dhimmi status of Jews and Christians; 5) have patriotic rallies with American flags, endorse freedom of religion, burn some posters of Osama and company.
Please consider these musings from a few summers ago, which I composed around the release time of President Bill Clinton's memoir, My LIfe, and in response to a review by David Maraniss:
A lot of post-sixties hip guys and gals found great wisdom and joy in the work of Billy Joel during the 1970s. There was always the notion that Joel was one of the great philosopher-song writers, who offered deeper and more nuanced understandings of culture than your run of the mill pop-singer (and I think that latter clause is undoubtedly correct). He resonated with a certain segment of the young upwardly mobile intelligentsia in America. I do not know if President Clinton was a Billy Joel fan, but I think certainly he was exposed to his music, and "My Life" was a huge hit in 1978.
I am not one who buys into the Clinton mythology of his unparalleled intellect and his reputation as a deep thinker or master strategist, but I do think of him as an intelligent, incredibly talented and charismatic guy; he also has a keen ability to blend classic culture with pop culture (for example: he is reputedly an expert crossword-puzzler). I think "My Life," as the title for the memoir, was not chosen without some consideration of "My Life," the Billy Joel single.
If so, some ironies:
"I never said you had to offer me a second chance
(I never said you had to)
I never said I was a victim of circumstance
(I never said)"
Irony I: that is exactly what the former president says and wants.
"I don't need you to worry for me cause I'm alright
I don't want you to tell me it's time to come home
I don't care what you say anymore, this is my life
Go ahead with your own life, and leave me alone"
Irony II: The sentiment of "this is my life" (and you have no right to judge me by your standards) is what I think appealed most to the former president (either consciously or sub-consciously). This is/was the Clinton defense to so many questions of character and propriety. However, the irony is that the former president is completely captive to his public perception. He does care deeply what we think of him. His worst punishment would be if we did actually "leave him alone." He must have attention and adoration to function. Those are his addictions, and they do drive his great successes as well as his great failures.
There is more here (especially the role of contradictions)--but you get the point.
Is the Clinton memoir just another installment in the "permanent campaign"? David Maraniss speaks to this, noting "that a memoir is by its very nature manipulative." However, he seems to take the work at face value from that point on. Stan Campbell (quoting Fletcher Green) used to tell us to ask this question: "Why is this SOB lying to me?" If you ask that with the former president--you have myriad motivations as well as a pattern of dissembling and disingenuousness. Old joke: "How can you tell when Bill Clinton is lying? His lips are moving." President Clinton has no reason to be perfectly honest--and a whole host of reasons to continue to argue his case (and his wife's) before the bar of public opinion. This is not history--it is contemporary politics.
Having said that, the former president is often so transparent that his lies tell great truths.
I think the statement "because I could," in response to the question of "why Monica?" is a telling one. He subsequently attempted to explain that answer by saying that he meant "he could" with Monica because the dastardly Republicans had shut down the government, and only volunteers were allowed to work at the White House, and there were not many people around, and he was really stressed-out about saving the American people from the evil designs of Newt Gingrich and the cabal to turn back the clock on compassionate governance. He actually said on Oprah: "I won the fight for you [looking out at the audience] the American people, but I lost the fight against my old personal demons." (Applause) That was silly (and it reminded me of the old Tammy Faye Bakker song, sung to the tune of "Harper Valley PTA," that explained the fall of the Bakkers as a result of a Jimmy Swaggart-Jerry Falwell conspiracy). Oh yeah, did I mention Ken Starr yet?
Okay, but the point on "because I could" is this: Monica did, in fact, happen because he could. But I think it went like this: Monica was not very attractive, not very smart and not very well-connected, which made her perfect. She was perfect because she was "there" (available), and she was perfect because she was expendable. She could be manipulated easily and exploited without risk. Ironically, she found a series of advocates (albeit without her interests at heart) who demanded that President Clinton answer for the relationship, but that was not his original calculation. And there is some evidence that indicates this was a pattern of behavior for Clinton; therefore, if true, he had every reason to believe that there would be no grave political consequences to this dalliance. The "because I could" reveals his deepest character flaw--not that he was an adulterer--but that he was so willing to take advantage of this "lesser" person to gratify personal psychological and physical needs. I think the answer ("because I could") demonstrates the self-centeredness of his life and presidency.
for lyrics to MY LIFE, by Billy Joel:
A lot of post-sixties hip guys and gals found great wisdom and joy in the work of Billy Joel during the 1970s. There was always the notion that Joel was one of the great philosopher-song writers, who offered deeper and more nuanced understandings of culture than your run of the mill pop-singer (and I think that latter clause is undoubtedly correct). He resonated with a certain segment of the young upwardly mobile intelligentsia in America. I do not know if President Clinton was a Billy Joel fan, but I think certainly he was exposed to his music, and "My Life" was a huge hit in 1978.
I am not one who buys into the Clinton mythology of his unparalleled intellect and his reputation as a deep thinker or master strategist, but I do think of him as an intelligent, incredibly talented and charismatic guy; he also has a keen ability to blend classic culture with pop culture (for example: he is reputedly an expert crossword-puzzler). I think "My Life," as the title for the memoir, was not chosen without some consideration of "My Life," the Billy Joel single.
If so, some ironies:
"I never said you had to offer me a second chance
(I never said you had to)
I never said I was a victim of circumstance
(I never said)"
Irony I: that is exactly what the former president says and wants.
"I don't need you to worry for me cause I'm alright
I don't want you to tell me it's time to come home
I don't care what you say anymore, this is my life
Go ahead with your own life, and leave me alone"
Irony II: The sentiment of "this is my life" (and you have no right to judge me by your standards) is what I think appealed most to the former president (either consciously or sub-consciously). This is/was the Clinton defense to so many questions of character and propriety. However, the irony is that the former president is completely captive to his public perception. He does care deeply what we think of him. His worst punishment would be if we did actually "leave him alone." He must have attention and adoration to function. Those are his addictions, and they do drive his great successes as well as his great failures.
There is more here (especially the role of contradictions)--but you get the point.
Is the Clinton memoir just another installment in the "permanent campaign"? David Maraniss speaks to this, noting "that a memoir is by its very nature manipulative." However, he seems to take the work at face value from that point on. Stan Campbell (quoting Fletcher Green) used to tell us to ask this question: "Why is this SOB lying to me?" If you ask that with the former president--you have myriad motivations as well as a pattern of dissembling and disingenuousness. Old joke: "How can you tell when Bill Clinton is lying? His lips are moving." President Clinton has no reason to be perfectly honest--and a whole host of reasons to continue to argue his case (and his wife's) before the bar of public opinion. This is not history--it is contemporary politics.
Having said that, the former president is often so transparent that his lies tell great truths.
I think the statement "because I could," in response to the question of "why Monica?" is a telling one. He subsequently attempted to explain that answer by saying that he meant "he could" with Monica because the dastardly Republicans had shut down the government, and only volunteers were allowed to work at the White House, and there were not many people around, and he was really stressed-out about saving the American people from the evil designs of Newt Gingrich and the cabal to turn back the clock on compassionate governance. He actually said on Oprah: "I won the fight for you [looking out at the audience] the American people, but I lost the fight against my old personal demons." (Applause) That was silly (and it reminded me of the old Tammy Faye Bakker song, sung to the tune of "Harper Valley PTA," that explained the fall of the Bakkers as a result of a Jimmy Swaggart-Jerry Falwell conspiracy). Oh yeah, did I mention Ken Starr yet?
Okay, but the point on "because I could" is this: Monica did, in fact, happen because he could. But I think it went like this: Monica was not very attractive, not very smart and not very well-connected, which made her perfect. She was perfect because she was "there" (available), and she was perfect because she was expendable. She could be manipulated easily and exploited without risk. Ironically, she found a series of advocates (albeit without her interests at heart) who demanded that President Clinton answer for the relationship, but that was not his original calculation. And there is some evidence that indicates this was a pattern of behavior for Clinton; therefore, if true, he had every reason to believe that there would be no grave political consequences to this dalliance. The "because I could" reveals his deepest character flaw--not that he was an adulterer--but that he was so willing to take advantage of this "lesser" person to gratify personal psychological and physical needs. I think the answer ("because I could") demonstrates the self-centeredness of his life and presidency.
for lyrics to MY LIFE, by Billy Joel:
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
The Iowa State Fair: carnival rides, livestock shows, grandstand entertainment, corn dogs, and presidential candidates. This and other articles from the Des Moines Register. link here
15/08: Almost Zero-Pollution Cars
About four years ago I became aware of research being done in France on the possibility of cars that run on compressed air. What a simple, elegant solution. Commuter cars do not travel that many miles, and could easily make the commute between refills of air. While an energy input is needed to recharge the air cylinder, it is easier to clean the stacks of an electric power plant than to clean the exhaust of the tens-of-thousands of cars that clog the cities during commuter rush hours. Will it work? I do not know, but the idea should be getting research money.
Here is a link to a site promoting the compressed air auto. Below is a skeptical article from 2000 from the New York Times.
Here is a link to a site promoting the compressed air auto. Below is a skeptical article from 2000 from the New York Times.
15/08: What Happened to the Frogs?
Category: Environment
Posted by: an okie gardener
Yesterday evening we had a light shower of rain (.15", not enough to matter a lot with our year-and-a-half droughth, but we are thankful for what we receive). This morning early the dogs and I walked along the edge of the creek below our house, along the moist dirt exposed by the low water levels. Minnows splashed along the water surface, a squirrel chattered on the other side, otherwise it was quiet. Too quiet.
I grew up on a farm in northern Missouri, quite a ways out in the sticks. One of the dominent summer sounds of my childhood was the frogs: in the night you could tell where the ponds were for nearly a mile in any direction by listening to the croaking, bellowing, and trilling of frogs. The first night of spring that we left the windows open I usually had trouble sleeping because of the noise of frogs from nearby ponds. Any summer day I walked along the edge of a pond or creek, my steps were preceeded by the sound of the frogs ahead of me jumping into the water.
Now the waters are silent. Frogs are rare. Not just where I grew up, but about everywhere in the United States. Not just one species, but all species. What happened to the frogs? Some things have been written about their disappearance, but it seems to me that this disturbing fact has not entered the national consciousness. Perhaps we are too much an urban nation now to notice. Something is going on in creation and we need to take notice. We need to be asking if it is our behavior, our pollution, that has caused this die-off? As a Christian I believe that we humans are to be stewards of creation who will give an account of our stewardship to God. Will God asked us, what happened to my frogs?
I grew up on a farm in northern Missouri, quite a ways out in the sticks. One of the dominent summer sounds of my childhood was the frogs: in the night you could tell where the ponds were for nearly a mile in any direction by listening to the croaking, bellowing, and trilling of frogs. The first night of spring that we left the windows open I usually had trouble sleeping because of the noise of frogs from nearby ponds. Any summer day I walked along the edge of a pond or creek, my steps were preceeded by the sound of the frogs ahead of me jumping into the water.
Now the waters are silent. Frogs are rare. Not just where I grew up, but about everywhere in the United States. Not just one species, but all species. What happened to the frogs? Some things have been written about their disappearance, but it seems to me that this disturbing fact has not entered the national consciousness. Perhaps we are too much an urban nation now to notice. Something is going on in creation and we need to take notice. We need to be asking if it is our behavior, our pollution, that has caused this die-off? As a Christian I believe that we humans are to be stewards of creation who will give an account of our stewardship to God. Will God asked us, what happened to my frogs?
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
One of Niebuhr's key insights in Christian Realism, is that organizations or structures lack the ability to transcend themselves and so are incapable of repentence. Individuals may repent, but not corporations. Human structures (private businesses or governments) only change behavior when forced to do so. In part this is because the imperative of self-interest applies to organizations at least as much as to individuals. An office set up to monitor workplace safety will not declare the workplace safe and abolish itself: it will find new "threats" to justify funding and new hiring. Put another way, the individuals who make up that office will continue to justify their own pay and power and seek to expand both. This is why government programs never are abolished; the organization itself operates out of self-interest and is not suicidal. This principle also explains why the State Department always pushes for a diplomatic solution even when such a solution may be bad for our national interest. Diplomacy is what State does.
The recent episode of the disappering Egyptian "students" should cause us to ask if it is time to challenge higher education in the name of the common good. Schools and colleges will continue to act in self-interest; it is in their self-interest to have more students paying tuition, getting grants, etc. Foreign students help pay the bills and increase enrollment. We cannot expect institutions of higher education to transcend themselves, repent, and confess that they have wronged the country by pushing for more and more Middle Eastern students. We the people, through our government, must push to cut down on the numbers of students from predominently Islamic countries to a number we can keep good track of.
The recent episode of the disappering Egyptian "students" should cause us to ask if it is time to challenge higher education in the name of the common good. Schools and colleges will continue to act in self-interest; it is in their self-interest to have more students paying tuition, getting grants, etc. Foreign students help pay the bills and increase enrollment. We cannot expect institutions of higher education to transcend themselves, repent, and confess that they have wronged the country by pushing for more and more Middle Eastern students. We the people, through our government, must push to cut down on the numbers of students from predominently Islamic countries to a number we can keep good track of.
